R

eflective practice is becoming a dominant paradigm in ESL/EFL

teacher education programs worldwide. Reflection-in-teaching
refers to teachers subjecting their beliefs and practices of teaching to a critical analysis. However, the concept of reflective
teaching is not clearly defined, and a plethora of different

approaches with sometimes confusing meanings have been pushed in teacher education
programs. This article reviews some current approaches to reflective teaching and then
suggests a method of providing opportunities for ESL/EFL teachers to reflect on their
work. The article seeks to examine: 1) reflective teaching and critically reflective teaching and, 2) the different approaches to reflective teaching. Five components of a teacher
development model that can provide opportunities for practicing ESL/EFL teachers are
discussed.
One day a young girl was watching her
mother cooking a roast of beef. Just before the
mother put the roast in the pot, she cut a slice
off the end. The ever observant daughter
asked her mother why she had done that, and
the mother responded that her grandmother
had always done it. Later that same afternoon,
the mother was curious, so she called her
mother and asked her the same question. Her
mother, the childs grandmother, said that in
her day she had to trim the roasts because
they were usually too big for a regular pot.
Teaching without any reflection can lead to
cutting the slice off the roast, and can also
lead to burnout on the job. One way of identifying routine and of counteracting burnout is
to engage in reflective teaching.
What is reflection?

In a review of the literature on reflective

teaching, one discovers that there is much
variance in the definition. Pennington
(1992:47) defines reflective teaching as
deliberating on experience, and that of mirroring experience. She also extends this idea
to reflective learning. Pennington (1992:47)
relates development to reflection where
reflection is viewed as the input for development while also reflection is viewed as the
output of development. Pennington

14

C T O B E R

(1992:51) further proposes a reflective/developmental orientation as a means

for (1) improving classroom processes and
outcomes, and (2) developing confident, selfmotivated teachers and learners. The focus
here is on analysis, feedback, and adaptation
as an ongoing and recursive cycle in the
classroom.
In a more recent article, Pennington
(1995:706) says that teacher change and
development require an awareness of a need
to change. She defined teacher development
as a metastable system of context-interactive
change involving a continual cycle of innovative behavior and adjustment to circumstances. She sees two key components of
change: innovation and critical reflection. In
her study of how eight secondary teachers
moved through a change cycle as they learned
about innovation, she noted that through
deep reflection, teachers were able to reconstruct a teaching framework to incorporate the
previously
contradictory
elements
(1995:725).
Richards (1990:5) sees reflection as a key
component of teacher development. He says
that self-inquiry and critical thinking can
help teachers move from a level where they
may be guided largely by impulse, intuition,
or routine, to a level where their actions are

2 0 0 3

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

Reflection Type and Author

Content of Reflection

Technical Rationality (Schulman

1987; VanMannen 1977)

Examining ones use of skills and

immediate behaviors in teaching with
an established research/theory base.

Reflection-in-action (Schon 1983, 1987)

Dealing with on-the-spot professional

problems as they occur. Thinking can
be recalled and then shared later.

Reflection-on-action (Schon 1983,

1987; Hatton and Smith 1995;
Gore and Zeichner 1991)

Recalling ones teaching after the class.

Teacher gives reasons for his/her
actions/behaviors in class.

Reflection-for-action
(Killon and Todnew 1991)

Proactive thinking in order to guide

future action.

Action Research (Carr and Kemmis

1986)

Self-reflective enquiry by participants in

social settings to improve practice.

Recent research
on reflective
practice has used
different and

guided by reflection and critical thinking. In

referring to critical reflection in an interview
with Farrell (1995:95), Richards says:
Critical reflection refers to an activity or
process in which experience is recalled, considered, and evaluated, usually in relation to
a broader purpose. It is a response to a past
experience and involves conscious recall and
examination of the experience as a basis for
evaluation and decision-making and as a
source for planning and action.
Outside TESOL, the terms involving
reflection become less clear. The definitions
move from simply looking at the behavioral
aspects of teaching, to the beliefs and knowledge these acts of teaching are based on, to
the deeper social meaning the act of teaching
has on the community.
According to Zeichner and Liston
(1987:34) reflective action entails the active,
persistent and careful consideration of any
belief or supposed form of knowledge. Routine action is guided primarily by tradition,
external authority, and circumstances.
Zeichner and Liston (1987:87) define teaching as taking place when someone (a
teacher) is teaching someone (a student)
about something (a curriculum) at some place

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

and sometime (a milieu). Dewey (1933:9)

sees a further distinction in teaching when he
says routine teaching takes place when the
means are problematic but the ends are taken
for granted. However, he sees reflective
action as entailing active, persistent, and
careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the
grounds that support it and the further consequences to which it leads.
Recent research on reflective practice has
used different and conflicting terms to define
reflective teaching. Table 1 gives a summary
of the major approaches to the study of reflective practice.
The first type of reflection, technical rationality, examines teaching behaviors and skills
after an event, such as a class. The focus of
reflection is on effective application of skills
and technical knowledge in the classroom
(VanMannen 1977), and it also focuses on
cognitive aspects of teaching (Schulman
1987). Many beginning teachers start to
examine their skills from this perspective in
controlled situations with immediate feedback from teacher educators. The beginning
teacher is trying to cope with the new situation of the classroom (Fuller 1970).

C T O B E R

2 0 0 3

conflicting terms to
define reflective
teaching.

15

We undertake
reflection, not so
much to revisit the
past or to become
aware of the meta
cognitive process
one is experiencing (both noble
reasons in themselves) but to
guide future action
(the more practical
purpose).

16

The second notion of reflective practice is

called reflection-in-action (Schon 1983, 1987).
For this to occur, the teacher has to have a
kind of knowing-in-action. Knowing-in-action
is analogous to seeing and recognizing a face
in a crowd without listing and piecing
together separate features; the knowledge we
reveal in our intelligent action is publicly
observable, but we are unable to make it verbally explicit. Schon (1987) says that we can
sometimes make a description of the tacit, but
that these descriptions are symbolic constructions; knowledge-in-action is dynamic, facts
are static. For Schon (1983, 1987), thought is
embedded in action and knowledge-in-action
is the center of professional practice.
Reflection-in-action, again according to
Schon (1983, 1987), is concerned with thinking about what we are doing in the classroom
while we are doing it; this thinking is supposed to reshape what we are doing. There is
a sequence of moments in a process of
reflection-in-action: (a) A situation or action
occurs to which we bring spontaneous routinized responses, as in knowing-in-action;
(b) Routine responses produce a surprise, an
unexpected outcome for the teacher that does
not fit into categories of knowing-in-action.
This then gets our attention; (c) This surprise
leads to reflection within an action. This
reflection is to some level conscious but
need not occur in the medium of words; (d)
Reflection-in-action has a critical function. It
questions the structure of knowing-in-action.
Now we think critically about the thinking
that got us there in the first place; (e) Reflection gives rise to on-the-spot experimentation.
We think up and try out new actions intended
to explore newly observed situations or happenings. Schon (1983, 1987) says that reflection-in-action is a reflective conversation with
the materials of a situation.
The third notion of reflection is called
reflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action deals
with thinking back on what we have done to
discover how our knowing-in-action may have
contributed to an unexpected action (Schon
1987; Hatton and Smith 1995). This includes
reflecting on our reflecting-in-action, or
thinking about the way we think, but it is different from reflecting-in-action.
The fourth notion of reflection is called
reflection-for-action. Reflection-for-action is
different from the previous notions of reflection in that it is proactive in nature. Killon

C T O B E R

and Todnew (1991:15) argue that reflectionfor-action is the desired outcome of both previous types of reflection, reflection-in-action
and reflection-on-action; however, they say
that we undertake reflection, not so much to
revisit the past or to become aware of the meta
cognitive process one is experiencing (both
noble reasons in themselves) but to guide
future action (the more practical purpose).
The fifth notion of reflection is connected
to action research. Action research is the
investigation of those craft-knowledge values
of teaching that hold in place our habits when
we are teaching (McFee 1993). It concerns
the transformation of research into action. As
McFee (1993:178) says: It is research into
(1) a particular kind of practiceone in
which there is a craft-knowledge, and (2) is
research based on a particular model of
knowledge and research with action as outcomethis knowledge is practical knowledge. Carr and Kemmis (1986:182) say that
action research: is a form of self-reflective
enquiry undertaken by participants (teachers,
or principals, for example) in social situations
in order to improve the rationality and justice
of (a) their own social or educational practices, (b) their understanding of these practices, and (c) the situations (and institutions)
in which these practices are carried out.
We can see then, that there is a big difference between reflective action and routine
action. If the review of the literature of reflective teaching reveals different definitions of
the concept, the same is true for definitions of
critical reflection. Outside TESOL, Hatton
and Smith (1995:35) point out that the term
critical reflection, like reflection itself,
appears to be used loosely, some taking it to
mean more than constructive self-criticism of
ones action with a view to improvement.
Hatton and Smith (1995:35), however,
point out that the concept of critical reflection
implies the acceptance of a particular ideology. This view of critical reflection in teaching also calls for considerations of moral and
ethical problems (Adler, 1991; Gore and
Zeichner 1991; VanMannen 1977), and it also
involves making judgments about whether
professional activity is equitable, just, and
respectful of persons or not (Hatton and
Smith 1995:35). Therefore, the wider sociohistorical and political-cultural contexts can
also be included in critical reflection (Zeichner and Liston 1987; Schon 1983, 1987).

2 0 0 3

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

In TESOL, too, the term critical reflection

has been used rather loosely. Richards (1990)
does not distinguish between reflection and
critical reflection. Neither does he take the
broader aspect of society into consideration
when defining reflective practice. Similarly,
Days (1993) ideal of analytical reflection
does not talk about the broader society. Also,
Pennington (1995:106) defines critical reflection as the process of information gained
through innovation in relation to the teachers
existing schema for teaching. Again, the
broader aspect of society does not play a significant role in her definition of critical
reflection.
However, Bartlett (1990:204) sees a need
to include the broader society in any definition of critical reflection. He says that in order
for teachers to become critically reflective,
they have to transcend the technicalities of
teaching and think beyond the need to
improve our instructional techniques. He
sees critical reflection as locating teaching
in its broader social and cultural context.
Providing opportunities for ESL/EFL
teachers to reflect: Five components of a
teacher development model

The five components of a language teacher

development model presented here are the
result of the experiences of an EFL teacher
development group in Korea. In the fall
semester of 1994, three experienced EFL
teachers in Korea met to reflect on their work
(Farrell 1996). This process of reflection
included weekly group meetings, individual
meetings, class observation, and regular journal writing (for a complete description of the
study please see Farrell 1996).
The five core elements are not isolated but
are all connected: One builds on the other
and all need to be considered as a whole. The
five components are:
1. Provide different opportunities for
teachers to reflect through a range of different
activities.
2. Build in some ground rules to the
process and into each activity.
3. Make provisions for four different kinds
of time.
4. Provide external input for enriched
reflection.
5. Provide for low affective states.

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

1. Provide different opportunities. A

range of activities should be provided for
teachers to reflect on their work. These activities can be carried out alone, in pairs, or as a
group. A group of teachers may decide to do
one of the activities or a combination of any or
all of them.
Group discussions. Group discussions can
simply be a group of teachers who come
together for regular meetings to reflect on
their work. A teacher trainer (or moderator)
should provide encouragement and support
for the group.
Observation. Observation can be carried
out alone, as in self-observation, in pairs
observing each others class (see also critical
friend below) or the group can try to observe
each members class. (As observation can be
a sensitive issue, a discussion of this is
included in the section on built-in rules.)
Journal writing. Journal writing can be carried out alone in the form of a diary, in pairs
writing to and for each other, and in the group
writing to and for each other (see Brock et
al., 1992 for ideas of journaling together).
As with the other activities, some ground
rules should be built in to this activity (addressed below).
Critical friends. Groups and individuals
link critical friendships in some way to observations of classes. In this way the critical
friends can have an open dialogue which is
grounded in their observations and experiences. Colleagues can engage each other in
systematic reflection and thus direct each
others professional self-development. Francis
(1995:234) says that critical friends can
stimulate, clarify, and extend thinkingand
feel accountable for their own growth and
their peers growth.
It is important to note that when utilizing
any of the above activities in any program of
professional self-development, the suggestions that follow components two through five
should also be incorporated.
2. Negotiated ground rules. Initially,
our group took a flexible approach, which was
informal for each of the activities, and we did
not specifically state what we wanted to
achieve in each of the activities. With this
level of flexibility in our group, each participant exhibited a different level of energy and
commitment. For example, two of the participants were active in all of the activities, while

C T O B E R

2 0 0 3

17

the other chose to be active in only one of the

activities. This flexibility provided opportunities for the group to progress at its own pace,
in a way which best suited each individuals
own needs. Golby and Appleby (1995:156)
say that too much flexibility in these situations can lead to a danger that [the group]
may just drift.
In fact, it appeared that at times we drifted
off into our own agendas and there was a danger that more pressing (sometimes important
but mostly trivial) matters or problems would
take over. Therefore, I see a need for a negotiated set of built-in-rules or guidelines that
each group or pair should follow in order to
keep the drifting to a minimum. The model I
present here can be adjusted to individual
group needs.
Suggestions three through five are actually
ground rules that can be built in to the activities. For example, who will chair the meetings? Will it be a revolving chair with a
revolving level of responsibility to provide a
site and refreshments, and set the agenda and
length of the meetings? This chairperson
should also be willing to use his/her position
to protect and encourage the free expression
of views.
For observations, certain understandings
need to be negotiated ahead of time. For
example, what are the responsibilities of the
observer? Is intervention possible or desirable in the class? Will the class be videotaped, audiotaped, or neither? If you use a
video, how will this be analyzed and why?
What is to be observed and how?
For journal writing, our teacher development group found that the number of entries
did not really influence the level of critical
reflection, and if anything, led to more
descriptions of teaching. Just as research has
shown that preservice teachers tend to ramble
in their writing (Francis 1995), our group
tended to ramble on about personal matters
outside their teaching in their writing. We
exchanged our journals at the start of each
group meeting but we did not discuss them.
A minimum set of guidelines needs to be
negotiated to insure a deeper, critical level of
reflection beyond mere descriptions of teaching. For this, groups/pairs should negotiate the
number of frequency of entries and the type of
entries. The following list of general questions
may help get a writer started: Describe what
you do nonjudgmentally. Why do you do it?

18

C T O B E R

Should you continue to do it or change it?

What do others do? (Our group tended to stay
at level of describing what we do).
To suggest a set of built-in rules for critical friends is not easy because there must be
an element of trust and openness present in
order to avoid putting emphasis on the critical
while overlooking the friend. Putting a greater
emphasis on the friend implies trust and support that is needed to get at the critical level
of reflection. Otherwise, we can, as Francis
(1995:240) says, lace observation and feedback with subjective judgments and a fix it
assumption.
The friend can provide another set of eyes
that both support and challenge us to get at
deeper reflections of our teaching. To encourage this openness, the initial conversations
between critical friends (or all conversations)
should be taped and analyzed. This analysis
can include the use of questions in their relationship, in terms of type, power structures
established, focus of observation, and usefulness. In this way critical friends can negotiate
what they want to achieve. Of course, all of
the above activities and built-in guidelines
cannot be accomplished quickly; like all
valuable things, they take time. This introduces the next component of the model: time.
3. Four distinct types of time. For
practicing teachers to be able to reflect on
their work, time is a very important consideration. Our group considered four different
views/types of time:
1. Individual
2. Activity
3. Development
4. Period of reflection
Individual. Practicing teachers are very
busy in their daily teaching and other related
duties, and the amount of time any one
teacher is willing to invest in his or her professional self-development will naturally vary.
This can create a dilemma for the group if all
the participants do not attend all the group
meetings or participate fully in the activities;
group cohesion may be harmed. Therefore, a
certain level of commitment by individual
participants in terms of time availability
should be negotiated by the group at the start
of the process.
Activity. Associated with the time each
participant has to give the project is the time
that should be spent on each activity. For

2 0 0 3

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

example, our group meetings were scheduled

to last for one hour, whereas they lasted for
three hours. This was both good and bad; it
provided more dialogue, but it also exhausted
everyone as the term progressed.
Time for the observation process is concerned with the number of observations. Two
of the participants in our group allowed observations once a week, the other four times during the semester. The number of times a class
can be observed should be negotiated by each
group while also taking the first notion of time
(individual) into consideration.
The journal also needs time: time to write
and time to read. Our group read each others
journal at the beginning of each group meeting, but we wrote it at home. However, we did
not comment on the journals. An alternative
way would be to have time to write and read
at the beginning and/or end of each group
meeting.
Development. Another aspect of time that
is important for teacher self-development
groups is the time it takes to develop. Golby
and Appleby (1995:158) point out that
teachers do not readily confront their problems with a reflective approach. Elbaz
(1988:173) says that teachers have a common concern to reduce the complexity of the
situation, to accept neat and obvious accounts
of the causes of the problems. Analytical
reflection, therefore, takes time and only progresses at a rate which individual teachers are
ready to reflect critically.
Our group encountered two distinct stages.
The first stage was what I call the getting to
know you stage. We were feeling each other
out and negotiating our personal and group
agendas. When we started trusting each other
a little more, we entered a second stage,
which I call the reflective stage. The first
stage took five group meetings over a sevenweek period. Other groups will no doubt
experience different stages over a different
time period.
Period of reflection. The period of time it
takes to become reflective is connected to the
last aspect of time presented here: the time
frame for the project as a whole. How long
should a group, a pair, or an individual
reflect? It is important to consider this for two
reasons. First, reflection takes time, so the
reflective period should be correspondingly
long rather than short; otherwise, it will be

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

time wasted. Secondly, having a fixed period

in which to reflect allows the participants to
know what period during the semester they
can devote wholly to reflection. Our group
survived, according to one of the participants,
because we had an end in sight.
4. External input. The previous three
suggestions utilize the idea of probing and
articulating personal theories, which is at the
center of teacher professional self-development. This is a process of constructing and
reconstructing real teaching experiences, and
reflecting on personal beliefs about teaching.
However, at this level, reflection only emphasizes personal experiences, which Ur
(1993:2022) says promotes a relative
neglect of external input. Teacher education,
whether preservice or inservice, requires
input from vicarious experiences, other peoples observations and reflection,and from
other peoples experiments, and from theories
learned from research and the literature.
Our group did not provide the external
input Ur discusses. This may be one possible
reason that reflection, for the most part,
remained at the descriptive rather than analytical level in our project. We reflected on
our teaching as individual teachers, but we
did not compare this with other peoples opinions (university experts or other teachers).
If groups of teachers readily accept each
others perceptions of their teaching and support these perceptions regardless of what outsiders say, Nias (1987:140) points out, they
also inhibit change; by definition there is
seldom dissent or creative tension. Individuals and groups in a process of professional
self-development need to be challenged by
external input for a more enriched reflection (Ur 1993). This external input can come
from professional journals, other teachers
observations, and book publications of case
studies.
5. A low affective state. The above four
components of the model all pose some threat
and associated anxiety for practicing teachers. Nias (1987) has pointed out that change
in the practice of teaching is not easy but a
lengthy and potentially painful process.
Inevitably, there will be a certain level of anxiety present. Francis (1995) indicates that for
in-depth reflection to occur, which is not
automatic, anxiety is present. Therefore, a
non-threatening environment should be fos-

C T O B E R

2 0 0 3

Teacher education,
whether preservice
or inservice,
requires input from
vicarious experiences, other
peoples observations and reflection,and from
other peoples
experiments, and
from theories
learned from
research and the
literature.

19

tered in the group by the individuals themselves. Ways of establishing low anxiety can
be incorporated, such as emphasizing
description and observation over judgment.
Category systems such as Fanselows FOCUS
(1987) and/or Achesons and Galls (1987)
SCORE could also be used to reduce anxiety
associated with judgments (we used both category systems to help with our reflections).
Conclusion

Reflective teaching can benefit ESL/EFL

teachers in four main ways: (1) Reflective
teaching helps free the teachers from impulse
and routine behavior. (2) Reflective teaching
allows teachers to act in a deliberate, intentional manner and avoid the I dont know
what I will do today syndrome. (3) Reflective
teaching distinguishes teachers as educated
human beings since it is one of the signs of
intelligent action. (4) As teachers gain experience in a community of professional educators, they feel the need to grow beyond the initial stages of survival in the classroom to
reconstructing their own particular theory
from their practice. Dewey (1933:87) said that
growth comes from a reconstruction of experience so by reflecting on our own experiences, we can reconstruct our own educational perspective.
If English as a second or foreign language
teaching is to become recognized as a professional body, then teachers need to be able to
explain their judgments and actions in their
classrooms with reasoned argument. Ways of
achieving this level of reason include reflecting on teaching experiences and incorporating evidence from relevant scholarship into
teaching routines, which can lead to growth
and development. Lange (1990) sees an intimate relationship between reflective teaching
and teacher development:
The reflective process allows developing
teachers latitude to experiment within a
framework of growing knowledge and experience. It gives them the opportunity to examine their relations with students, their values,
their abilities, and their successes and failures in a realistic context. It begins the developing teachers path toward becoming an
expert teacher (Lange 1990:240250).
ESL/EFL teachers, meeting regularly in
any of the forms outlined in this article, will
begin to see how much they have in common,
become more comfortable explaining their

20

C T O B E R

teaching routines to themselves and others,

and may come to experience and enjoy a new
level of self-articulated professionalism.
References

Acheson, K. and M. Gall. 1987. Techniques in the

clinical supervision of teachers. New York:
Longman. (2nd. ed.)
Adler, S. 1991. The reflective practioner and the
curriculum of teacher education. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 17, 2, pp. 139150.
Bartlett, L. 1990. Teacher development through
reflective teaching. In Second Language
Teacher Education. eds. J. Richards and D.
Nunan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brock, M., B. Yu, and M. Wong. 1992. Journaling together: Collaborative diary-keeping and
teacher development. In Perspectives on second
language teacher development. eds. J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Hong Kong: City
University of Hong Kong. pp. 295307.
Carr, W. and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming critical:
Education, knowledge and action research.
London: Falmer Press.
Day, C. 1993. Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for teacher development.
British Educational Research Journal, 19, 1,
pp. 8393.
Dewey, J. 1933. How we think. In Mental Discipline in Modern Education. ed. W. Kolesnick.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Elbaz, F. 1988. Critical reflections on teaching:
insights from freire. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 14, pp. 171181.
Fanselow, J. 1987. Breaking rules. New York:
Longman.
Farrell, T. 1995. Second language teaching: Where
are we and where are we going? An interview
with Jack Richards. Language Teaching: The
Korea TESOL Journal, 3, 3, pp. 945.
. 1996. A qualitative study of the reflections of four experienced EFL teachers in
Korea as they reflect on their work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Francis, D. 1995. The reflective journal: A window
to preservice teachers knowledge. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 25, 2, pp. 229241.
Fuller, F. 1970. Personalized education for teachers: An introduction for teacher educators,
Report No. 001. Austin, Texas, Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education.
Golby, M. and R. Appleby. 1995. Reflective practice through critical friendship: Some possibilities. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 2,
pp. 149160.
Gore, J. and Zeichener, K. 1991. Action research
and reflective teaching in preservice teacher
education: A case study from the United States.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, pp. 119136.
Hatton, N. and D. Smith. 1995. Reflection in
teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 1, pp. 3339.

2 0 0 3

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

Killon, J. and G. Todnew. 1991. A process of personal theory building. Educational Leadership,
48, 6, pp. 1416.
Lange, D. 1990. A blueprint for a teacher development program. In Second Language Teacher
Education. eds. J. Richards, and D. Nunan.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
McFee, G. 1993. Reflections on the nature of
action-research. Cambridge Journal of Education 23, 2, pp. 173183.
Nias, J. 1987. Learning from difference: A collegial approach to change. In Educating Teachers, ed. J. Smyth. Barcombe: The Falmer Press.
Pennington, M. 1992. Reflecting on teaching and
learning: A development focus for the second
language classroom. In Perspectives on Second
Language Classroom Teacher Education. eds. J.
Flowerdew, M. Brock, and S. Hsia. Kowloon:
City Polythenic of Hong Kong.
. 1995. The teacher change cycle. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 4, pp. 705731.
Richards, J. 1990. Beyond training: Approaches to
teacher education in language teaching. Language Teacher, 14, 2, pp. 38.

N G L I S H

E A C H I N G

O R U M

Schon, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner. New

York: Basic Books.
. 1987. Educating the reflection practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and
learning in the profession. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass Publishers.
Schulman, L. 1987. Knowledge and teaching:
Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, pp. 122.
Ur, P. 1993. Teacher learning. In Building on
strength. 2. The proceedings of the ACTA/
ATESOL (NSW) National Conference and 8th
Summer School. Sydney, Australia: ATESOL,
NSW.
VanMannen, M. 1977. Linking ways of knowing
with ways of being practical. Curriculum
Inquiry, 6, pp. 205228.
Zeichner, K. and O. Liston. 1987. Teaching student
teachers to reflect. HER, 57, 1, pp. 2248.

This article was originally published in the

October 1998 issue.

C T O B E R

2 0 0 3

21